BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/25

Date of Institution : 1.2.2010

Date of Decision : 7.9.2010

Radhe Shyam aged about 48 years S/o Chiranji Lal, resident of Mohalla Dibbipura, Jaito Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, PSEB, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City Subdivision, PSEB, Kotkapura.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. M.S. Brar counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for issuing excessive bills in 12/2008 of 1069 units of Rs. 3445/-; in 2/2009 of 438 units of Rs. 5336/- (including Rs. 3445/- previous balance), in 4/2009 of 894 units of Rs. 7170/- (including Rs. 5336/- previous balance), in 6/2009 of 1603 units Rs. 14,392/- (including Rs. 7170/- as previous balance), in 8/2009 of 1746 units of Rs. 23,009/- (including Rs. 14,392/- as previous balance) of fast running meter to the Account number of the complainant DJ 59/0621 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful bills as mentioned above and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties using domestic electric connection Account No. DJ 59/0621. The meter of the connection of the complainant was running fast and the opposite party No. 2 issued the bill in the month 12/2008 of 1069 units of Rs. 3445/- which is very excessive as the complainant never used electricity to the extent of the bill as the meter of the complainant was running fast. Complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested that the meter of the complainant was running fast the same may please be got checked and correct meter be installed at the premises of the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 again issued the bill to the complainant in the month of 2/2009 of 438 units of Rs. 5336/- which includes Rs. 3445/- of previous balance. After that in 4/2009 bill of 894 units was issued for Rs. 7170/-, in 6/2009 bill of 1603 units of Rs. 14,692/- and in 8/2009 of Rs. 23,009/- were issued. In the month 8/2009 on the repeated request of the complainant opposite party No. 2 got deposited Rs. 120/- vide receipt dated 24.8.2009 as meter challenge fee and opposite party No. 2 also got deposited Rs. 7165/- as electricity bill vide receipt No. 243 dated 24.8.2009 and removed the meter from the premises of the complainant. After the change of meter opposite party No. 2 issued the bill of 134 units of Rs. 17,139/- which includes Rs. 15,844/- as previous balance and Rs. 540/- as sundry charges. Opposite party again issued the bill in 12/2009 of 221 units of Rs. 18,415/- which includes Rs. 17,139/- as previous balance and Rs. 420/- as sundry charges. After receiving the bills for the month of 10/2009 and 12/2009 complainant requested the opposite party No. 2 to get deposited the current bill but the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to get deposited current bills and threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.2.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has unnecessarily disputed the amount of the electricity bills prepared on the basis of consumption but the complainant willfully and intentionally did not make payment of the bills, so he is not entitled to any relief and is liable to make payment of the outstanding bills to avoid disconnection. On merits, it was alleged among other things that the meter of the complainant was working properly but the complainant unnecessarily disputed the working of the meter. Meter was not running fast. Sanctioned load of the premises of the complainant is 7.87 KW and consumption of his house is as recorded by the meter. The bill for the month of 2/2009 has been correctly prepared on the basis of actual consumption and the amount of bill is correct which includes the arrear of previous bill. All the subsequent bills have been prepared on the basis of the actual consumption recorded by the meter. On deposit of meter challenge fee the meter was removed and sent to ME Lab for checking correctness of the meter. The meter was checked on running load of 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% and the same was found within the prescribed limits. It was found running fast on 0.09% when as per instructions contained in Sales Regulation No. 72.5 accounts of the consumers where meters are found running fast up to 3% are not required to be overhauled. Meter checking report was prepared at the spot which is duly signed by AEE, ME Lab, Bathinda and other officials. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of electricity bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7, copy of receipt No. 243 Ex.C-8, copy of receipt No. 30 Ex.C-9 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of V.K. Bansal Ex.R-1, copy of store challan Ex.R-2, copy of memo No. 1389 Ex.R-3, copy of reading record Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-5, copy of ledger Ex.R-6 to Ex.R-10, affidavit of Tara Singh Raju JE Operation Ex.R-11 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the electric connection of the complainant was running fast. So, the opposite party No. 2 issued bills for Rs. 3445/- in the month of 12/2008 of 1069 units which was very excessive as the complainant never used electricity to that extent. Complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and requested them that his electric meter which was running fast be got checked and to replace with correct meter but opposite party No. 2 issued successive bills including the previous amounts outstanding as balance inspite of checking the working of the meter and replacing the same. On deposit of meter challenge fee by the complainant, his meter was removed and sent to ME Lab for checking but the same was reported to be running fast within the permissible limits as per the instructions of the Board. As a matter of fact, electric meter was not checked on the load as alleged nor alleged checking was made in the presence of the complainant. Therefore, ME, report Ex.R-2 is totally unreliable and contrary to rules and regulations of the opposite parties.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that the electricity bills challenged by the complainant in this complaint were prepared on the basis of consumption but the complainant intentionally did not make payment of the bills and in this way huge amount is outstanding against the complainant. The allegations of fast running of electric meter of the complainant has been proved to be wrong in view of the ME Lab report Ex.R-2. Result report of challenged meter Ex.R-3 has been relied upon in this connection. It is further alleged that in this respect regulation 72.5.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations have been relied upon. It is further alleged that there is no requirement of checking of electricity meter in the given circumstances in the presence of the complainant.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted that as per regulations 21.4 (b) and (d) of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2007 presence of the complainant at the time of checking of the meter is sine qua non.

11. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record and have found that in view of the load of the electric meter of the complainant the bills raised qua his electricity meter are apparently on the higher side. In ledger folio Ex.R-7 reading have been apparently entered wrongly showing the old one as 6649 and new as 5755. The effect of replacement of the old meter with new meter further vouchsafes that prima facie allegations of the complainant qua improper working of the meter was correct. As per affidavit of Er. Tara Singh Raju JE Ex.R-11 old electric meter was brought to ME Lab Bathinda by him vide store challan No. 84 dated 26.10.2009. He has further stated that on checking in the ME Lab by Er. V.K. Jindal Xen on 4.11.2009 the electric meter was found running fast by 0.09%. The stance of the opposite parties is based on Clause 72.5.1 of Electricity Supply Regulations +1% is average error. However this checking was not done in the presence of the complainant and is admittedly one sided. The contention that presence of consumer (complainant) was not necessary is found to be misconceived and unwarranted. Clause (b) and (d) of Regulation 21.4 are as under:

(b) (i) A consumer may request the Licensee to test the meter/metering equipment installed in his premises, if he doubts its accuracy. The Licensee will undertake such site testing within seven days on payment of fee as specified in the Schedule of General Charges approved by the Commission.

(ii) If after testing, the meter is found to be defective then the fee deposited in accordance with Regulation 21.4 (b) (i) will be refunded by adjustment in the electricity bills for the immediately succeeding months. In case the meter is found to be correct then such fee will be forfeited by the Licensee.

(c) ....................................

(d) In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensee's laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing, at least seven days in advance. The signatures of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present, would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to the consumer.

The provisions in Clause (d) above does not make any distinction between cases where electricity meter is tested for its accuracy at the instance of the consumer or otherwise. It provides for information of the proposed date of testing seven days in advance to the consumer also necessitating his signatures or the signatures of his authorized representative on the test result sheet besides supplying him a copy of the test report. Therefore, presence of consumer, here the complainant was necessary at the time of checking. Since no notice to the complainant was issued and the meter was tested at his back so report of meter testing Ex.R-2 and fate of result of challenge meter Ex.R-3 cannot be said to be legally valid. Therefore, complaint filed by Radhey Sham complainant based on his old defective meter cannot be said to be incorrect, inaccurate and illegal and as such is accepted. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the illegal and unlawful bills of 12/2008 of 1069 Units of Rs. 3445/-, 2/2009 of 438 Units of Rs. 5336/-, 4/2009 of 894 units of Rs. 7170/-, 6/2009 of 1603 units of Rs. 14,392/- and 8/2009 of 1746 units of Rs. 23,009/- and issue the revised bills considering the old meter of the complainant to be defective for the relevant period, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned bills with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in his next bills. In the peculiar set of circumstances, no order as to costs. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 7.9.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)